Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Economic Plans

Hey Everybody! I am still dealing with stuff around here and haven't been able to do any reading. I'm not much of a TV watcher and haven't had the radio on either.

Anyway, I am a bit disturbed by the stuff happening on Wall Street... The recent bailouts of Fannie, Freddie, and AIG... but not Lehmans. I don't really understand this stuff and what sort of ramifications we are looking at... or how all of this will affect average Americans like us.

I'm curious about McCain vs Obama on the economic front. I have not looked into what each of their plans are exactly. What I have in my mind is more of the same or more taxes. I really need help in this area! I am hoping to get into this in depth and really figure things out.


Two Dogs said...

Well, as far as the bailout, it really is just a way to funnel government money to Barry's campaign. Jim Johnson, Antonio Mozila, and Frank Raines are all Barry economic policy advisors! I did a little piece on that at the greatest blog in the world. And the more that I delve into it, the more it becomes blatantly clear that Barry is running for president to keep from going to jail. Yes, three years was all he needed to completely get entangled in the mortgage debacle that is hurling the market into the abyss. And oddly enough, the Black Caucus is so tied into the graft and payoffs from those government "private industries" it is unbelievable. Hey! Let's give people a bunch of mortgages that can't afford and pay for them to go to college when they cannot read! It's a great idea!

McCain? Unknown quantity. The reason that I have never liked him is because he is just so moderate that you can never get a feel for what he might do.

Roland Hulme said...

Freddy Mac and Frannie Mae were disasters created entirely by the Democrats - and instead of winding up in jail, the crooked businessmen in charge have ended up working for Obama's campaign!

That being said, McCain's proposing tax cuts that would whack America 4 trillion into debt, yet not give the likes of you and me any tax rebates. Obama has a plan that saves social security, doesn't increase the deficit as much and gives money to pretty much everybody making less than $250,000 a year (and only costs people making between $250,000 and $600,000 a few bucks more.)

Obama's economic strategy, on the face of it, is worth winning the election with. ESPECIALLY since we've gone and nationalised the mortgage industry. I mean, before then, I'd have trusted McCain - but now we're in a different situation and you might as well be hung as a sheep as a lamb.

Two Dogs said...

Roland, you are incorrect in your assessment on Barry Obama and his plan for the economy and also in your very basic philosophy and understanding of economics. I am going to assume that you are young. Please keep in mind that this is certainly not a personal attack. It is just explaining things to those that do not have a grasp of simple concepts.

Point one, how in the world do tax cuts increase debt? Even though the government is a much larger financial entity than the Hulme household, let's look at them the same way. Roland goes to work one day and the boss tells you that he/she/ambiguous other has to cut your salary. How does that make you owe more money to anyone? Do you see the absolute wrongness in your statement about increasing debt?

Also, debt and deficit are NOT the same thing. I don't know where "deficit" came from in your statements.

Also, social security is an asinine concept. Going on my assumption that you are young, you enter the workforce and are FORCED to pay 13% of your salary for a government retirement account that returns less than 1% over the course of (20 years of age to 67) forty-seven years! This is a loser program for anyone that has contributed less than thirty years to the program. And Obama cannot make it solvent even if he is sent straight from God. He is not magic.

While you may think that Obama has a good idea, his social engineering proposals have been estimated to ADD one trillion dollars to the budget while his tax INCREASES on those making over 250k shall reduce revenue by minimally 4%. I use 4% as the reduction, because that is what the tax cuts INCREASED revenue by when they were enacted. You must understand that when you return tax money to the rightful owners, they do actually spend that money in the economy, something that a government program DOES NOT do. Spending money on consumables and expansion of businesses increase revenue, Roland, but taxing the money from the economy gives you at best, a zero sum gain.

You will hear over the nest few weeks that the theory of "trickle down economics" doesn't work, but oddly enough, that very concept gave us the longest expansion of our economy in history and doubling wages. An expansion that is still going on, albeit at a slower pace than before the Democrats stalled the economy, starting with the minimum wage increases.

Nothing is mutually exclusive, but minimum wage is dang near the entire problem to our economy and our illegal immigration problem.

Two Dogs said...

As a disclaimer, we have no clue what exactly McCain will do, he is decidedly moderate and has a tendency to move from side to side.

On the other hand, we absolutely know that everything that Obama deems good and right is decidedly wrong for freedom. So one is known and the other is not. At least with McCain there is a chance that he will do the right thing, we do not have that chance with Barry.

Roland Hulme said...


Trickle down economics DOESN'T work and our economy was better under Clinton than Reagan (crash of 89, anybody? Direct result of Reaganomics?)

Obama's tax cuts will put the country into deficit - but by A LOT less than McCain's tax cuts. Plus McCain's cuts only benefit the already wealthy.

You can see the comparison here.

Roland Hulme said...

Work out your own tax cut here - I save a grand.

Roland Hulme said...

Roland Hulme said...

Also check this out:

"Senator McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households."

"Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. "

Two Dogs said...

Roland, again I tell you the facts. Rolling back the tax cuts on those making over 250k will REDUCE revenue by 4%, not to mention the increase in unemployment when you penalize people that own businesses and create jobs. Then you add 1 trillion dollars of federal spending on TOP of that, how in the world can you claim that is a good idea and will do anything other than increase deficit spending?

If there are contradictions, then you must back up and check your basic premises. And so far, therre are no independent premises in your ideas that are NOT contradictory.

Then if you add in the fact that Barry has pretty much LIED about everything that he has ever done and everything that he believes, why would you believe him now?

ANd one more thing, if you go back to the last president that implemented the policies that Barry Obama advocates, you will find the affect of his policies in the real world. Check up on Jimmy Carter and the real world.

Two Dogs said...

I need to proofread sometimes.

Roland Hulme said...

According to the tax center, Obama's tax cuts cause less of a deficit than McCain's and make $600 billion more in tax revenue.

but you're right - that's only if he makes good on them (but the same can be said for McCain.)

Two Dogs said...

Roland, you do realize that the Tax Policy Center is run by Brookings and the Urban Institute, right? In other words, they are far, far left, so far in fact that most "researchers" there advocate socialism. TPC might as well get its info from the Barry campaign, which it does. Please, you seem like someone that wants to know things. The info from TPC is not correct, not even marginally. Report the findings from DailyKos, too. Might wanna check Democratic Underground as well. Or the New York Times. But, God forbid, you whip out a calculator and look at past performance!

Roland Hulme said...

Past performance like Reagan's tax cuts? Which made the rich richer, but actually RAISED the middle and working class payroll taxes?

Or Bush Snr? Who promised 'no new taxes' until THE SECOND he was in office.

Or how about Bush Jnr, who gives tax cuts to the seriously rich and then spends 600 billion - the same as this bailout - on a war in Iraq that arguably hasn't achieved anything (except killing over a thousand brave US servicemen.)

That works out as more than two grand for everybody in the US.

Two Dogs said...

Roland, are you insane? The tax cuts that were enacted under Reagan, with a Democrat Congress reduced every single tax rate. How can anyone pay more taxes when their rate is lower?

And do not get me started on HW. That guy is what caused us to have Clinton, but I guess in a roundabout way, he also gave us the Republican Congress that ushered in a fiscal responsibility for about four years until they caved to the media.

As far as the tax cuts from W, every single human being in the country, THAT PAYS TAXES, got a cut. And those tax cuts reduced the burden of taxation to over 50% of workers. If you make less than 25k, you pay NO TAX AT ALL.

Quit reading KOS and buy a calculator.

By the way, the number of those killed in the war against Islam is at 4000 servicemen and women.

And how about that Democrat Congress making it against the law for the US to buy oil from Iraq? That is good fiscal policy.

One Salient Oversight said...

The facts are:

Both Reagan and George W Bush cut taxes.

Both Reagan and George W Bush created very large deficits.

Clinton did not make any large tax cuts.

Clinton eventually created a budget surplus and paid back debt.

Two Dogs said...

Not to dispute OSO's "facts," but the President does nothing about the money. Congress controls spending. So taxes levied and money spent is a direct reflection of what Congress does. Deficit spending under Reagan and HW Bush was done by the Constitutional body that does that, and the very same thing happened when Clinton was in office.

Simply put, Democrats are bad for the economy, Republicans are good for the economy. And never has that simplistic statement been proven more readily than today.

One Salient Oversight said...

Both Reagan and George W. Bush both explicitly stated that they would fight to reduce taxes.

While Congress created the legislation that the two presidents signed, the tax cuts in both cases were explicitly pushed and promoted by the respective presidents.

Milton Friedman certainly credits Reagan for the tax cuts during his administration.

So does William A. Niskanen.

Other recent experts agree that Reagan's tax cuts led to big deficits.

And as for Bush, the official White House site describes the tax cuts as "Bush tax cuts".

Both Reagan and Bush created tax plans that they pushed through Congress.

Two Dogs said...

Again I ask, how in the world does cutting taxes have anything at all to do with spending? Yes, they cut taxes, but Congress increased spending. The tax cuts did not have anything to do with any debt, deficit, borrowing, or anything of the sort. Spending did that, tax cuts did not. Tax cuts allow people who earn the money to keep more of what they earn. That is all that tax cuts do.

Why will seemingly intelligent people ignore that FACT?

One Salient Oversight said...

So are you saying that reducing the government's tax revenue did not reduce the government's tax revenue?

Two Dogs said...

Actually OSO, as tax cuts always do, they have a tendency to increase revenue.

As a for instance, when they cut taxes during Reagan's tenure and revenue increased almost two-fold, Congress turned around and increased spending almost threefold. Cutting taxes had NOTHING to do with any deficit spending, the government going into debt or the like. Spending did that. That is pretty simple to understand. If you want another example, go up about six comments or so when I explained that using Roland as an example.

One Salient Oversight said...

Let me get this straight.

You reduce the cost of taxation... and more tax revenues come in?

If you can keep increasing your tax revenues by cutting taxes, what will your revenues be if you cut tax rates to zero?

Two Dogs said...

OSO, are you serious? If you reduce tax rates, you always increase revenue. In the US that has only been proven 100% of the time, since Congress first did it when John Kennedy was president.

You really do not know that every single time in the US that taxes have been cut, revenue increases? True, it might take a hit at first, but within a short time frame, that money is churned back by consumer spending.

Short explanation. Whenever government takes money from a taxpaying citizen that money is REMOVED from the economy and distributed to people that do not pay taxes. Those people get FREE housing, FREE utilities, FREE education, FREE medical services, blah, blah, blah. That money is not churned back into the economy, understand? Those services that are rendered are in government fixed pricing that is basically a loser and never shows a profit, ever. And then the taxpayers have to pick up the remainder with increased costs of our services. That is also why our healthcare costs are heading towards the costs incurred in France. If deregulation is not enacted pretty soon on deadbeat programs, we will be paying 13% of our income for medical services just like France.

Anyhoo, when you cut taxes on working folks, they spend that money buying stuff, going on vacation, new houses, new cars. In other words, they CONSUME. This adds jobs and even more wealth to the economy. When you add jobs, you add taxpayers. A never ending cycle.

And businesses increase their spending as well. They build new facilities, invest in research, blah, blah, blah. Even further adding jobs, and that cycle continues.

Why do you think that every single time that Congress raises minimum wage, unemployment increases and prices skyrocket?

Man, these are very basic economic truisms that I thought that everyone knew.

For someone that says that economics is a hobby, you really don't know much about it, huh?

Roland Hulme said...

Hey OSO,

I think our problem in engaging Two Dogs in debate is that we supply documentation to back up what we say and he just makes stuff up and calls us an idiot for not believing it.

Two Dogs said...

Roland, you are right about the documentation. I am not calling you stupid or anything of the sort. I am saying that if you do not understand basic math, then the economy is probably something that you do not understand either.

Go to Start/Programs/Accessories/Calculator.

If Obama raises tax rates, which he has said, and capital gains rates which he has said, use that calculator to figure out whether you pay more or less in taxes if your tax rate goes up. Oh, there are going to be "credits." But, Obama will SPEND an additional one trillion dollars, and then, yes the wealthy folks, those of us who make more than 48k a year, will hide our income, yes the folks that make between 24k and 48k will receive a tax hike. And Obama wants to give folks that DO NOT work or pay taxes, even more money in the form of raising EIC and the like. These things are surely documented somewhere on the web, but I have lived it and it has happened every single time that politicians think that they are the solution. Sadly, they are exactly the opposite, they are the problem.

Witness the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Of course, George W Bush has been trying to do something about those agencies since 2003, but no one listens to him and his staff because the NYT says Bush is a moron, and morons believe the NYT.

Government run mortgage lenders buying bad paper, new businesses cropped up called "loan originators," they loaned money to deadbeats, then sold the paper to a government lender that was forced by Janet Reno's DOJ to give money to folks based on their POORNESS instead of their ability to pay. Private lenders gave bad loans and turned around and sold them to FM and FM because they could and it was the LAW.

Recall also, that our first Black President Bill Clinton got together with the Democrat Congress and pushed through the largest tax hike in the history of our country the second year he was in office and the economy stalled, the Republicans took control of Congress for the first time in who knows when in 1994, the economy exploded and everyone got rich.

Then, Republicans hung around even though they promised not to, and became Democrats in philosophy.

And those bad lending practices were hanging around and more money dumped into bad paper. We are seeing the effects of a solely Democrat policy thrown into a market that was designed according to the philosophy of our founding fathers of a small government and laws made in the states, yet the market is being controlled by Washington. Therein, a contradiction, which cannot exist in the physical real world.

There are certainly undeniable truths in this world. If you increase taxes on the people that run businesses, the first people that are affected are the poor folks. You simply have to have a grasp of philosophy and understand people. Politicians tell you what you want to hear to get elected. That is one of those undeniable truths. The Democrats running in your home district are telling you that they are not going to take your guns, they are not going to raise taxes, but they are going to give more money to stupid people that do not work. That is another contradiction, which cannot exist in the physical real world.

Please read. This is about philosophy, which is about thinking, not about reading DailyKos and letting someone else do your thinking for you.

And maybe this would be a good place to start. Basic Economic Philosophy.

You see, the thing about reading words and looking at graphs and charts is great, but if the basic knowledge is not there to begin with, there is a problem. The effect of the lack of philosophy will make you believe that a man that only has the accomplishment of never getting his head stuck in a bucket will do something that will help you or the country.

Barry Obama has the economic policy team of Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines, and Antonio Mozila, three of the guys that set up this economic meltdown and you want to hand him the presidency? Contradiction?

Roland Hulme said...

"Barry Obama has the economic policy team of Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines, and Antonio Mozila, three of the guys that set up this economic meltdown and you want to hand him the presidency? Contradiction?"

No THAT is true - I wrote about it on my blog. So I agree, all the tax cuts Obama promises are attractive - but can we trust him?

Two Dogs said...

Well, we positively know Barry is lying about his "tax cuts" simply because he says that 95% of workers will get a tax cut with his plan. Fully 40% of workers do not pay taxes, so.....

Plus, he says that he will roll back the tax cuts for those making over 250k, you know, those folks that run businesses, provide jobs, and stuff. That tells me that yet again, the business owners will move money out of our country at the moment he gets in office, further slowing our economy.

If you want to look at some really fun stuff, figure out how Biden raked in almost four hundred thousand lat year, yet only paid seventy thousand in income taxes. That is only 17.5%. 'Plain that to me?

I know that most politicians are crooked, but did the Democrats have to pick their most corrupt two to run for the Presidency?

Anonymous said...


Just because you write about something on your blog, does not make it fact. It makes it your opinion. Speculation.

You have cited your writings on everything from abortion, bibilical positions on life and evolution, and of course a place for people to go and read the facts. Webster you are not...wikipedia? Nope.

You, my friend, are simply spouting off your opinion...gathering internet data (which is often written and posted as opinion just like yours) and trying to pass off what you believe as truth to be unequivocal fact.

Any data or any statistic out there can almost always be manipulated to argue for or against the exact same position.

You, my friend, are simply a great manipulator.

There lies on one side you, on the other side two dogs, and somewhere in the middle...truth.

Hopefully Coffee Beans blogging audience can read between the two.

Two Dogs said...

Anon, I am the middle. The far right is anarchy, absolutely no government. The far left is Barry Obama, total government control or dictatorship. Isn't it odd that the Democrats have all the folks on the far laft AND the far right and not one single normal person in the entire party?